Newly appointed Defence Secretary John Healey delivered a stirring speech to Armed Forces and civilian staff at the Ministry of Defence, marking the beginning of his tenure.
Addressing the assembled personnel, Healey underscored his commitment to the Defence Ministry’s mission and outlined his vision for a robust and unified defence strategy.
Healey opened his speech by expressing his gratitude for the opportunity to serve and praised the dedication and professionalism of the MOD staff. “It is for me an honour to be asked by the Prime Minister to serve in this role and to have the chance to work with you all in the months and years ahead. The work you do is vital and we are proud of the professionalism and your dedication to serving this nation, both in uniform and out.”
Recognising the current global security challenges, Healey noted, “We know these are serious times – war in Europe, conflict in the Middle East, growing Russian aggression, increasing global threats. We know there are serious problems – with our Armed Forces hollowed out and underfunded for 14 years.”
He reaffirmed the government’s commitment to defence spending and support for NATO, the nuclear deterrent, and Ukraine, saying, “This government now is totally committed to 2.5% of Defence spending, to NATO, to the nuclear deterrent and to support for Ukraine.”
Healey emphasised the importance of a unified defence strategy, highlighting that defence is not just about those in uniform but also the contributions of civilian staff. “Our mission is to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad, with the guiding principle of one Defence. Because it isn’t just those who serve in uniform who defend this country, it’s those of you who serve in the Civil Service, who work on the production line, who staff the research labs, who develop software.”
He outlined his priorities for the MOD, including ensuring the Armed Forces are well-equipped and ready to fight, strengthening the industrial base, building stronger relationships with allies, and fostering public support for the military. “That means an Armed Forces well-equipped and ready to fight, a skilled, scalable industrial base, a stronger relationship with allies, a more influential MOD, a public that understands and better supports those who are willing to serve – those whose service is the ultimate form of public service.”
In his closing remarks, Healey committed to a results-oriented approach and emphasised the importance of honesty and dedication in delivering the government’s defence plans. “I am more interested in results than photo opportunities. And I look forward to learning from your experience and hearing your ideas about how we can develop one Defence. I will rely on your experience, your honesty. I’ll rely on your dedication to solve the problems, in delivering the government’s defence plans.”
He concluded with a pledge to create a culture of respect and inclusivity within the Armed Forces and Civil Service. “As Keir Starmer said in Downing Street, we will be a government that respects all. So we will have an Armed Forces and Civil Service, drawing on all the talents. We’ll have a culture that values all, and we’ll have zero tolerance for any abuse, in the military or the Civil Service.”
Good news and from what I’ve seen and heard I believe this man to be right for the job. Unlike past Labour Governments, the need to boost UK defence can not be ignored regardless of past attitudes. The situation is now so precarious that the most ardent opponent of defence spending is having to recognise the urgency to rearm.
🤞🤞
I have served in uniform many moons ago & I voted Labour on 4-7-2024. The armed forces have been cut to the bone. IMO, the UK Nations need to beef up the Line Infantry Battalions to between 900/1000 strong ( Back to Cold war Line Infantry Battalion numbers. Today there is a hot war in Europe). Armed and clothed with the best kit. Good accommodation also increase in pay needed. A lot of the most up to date kit should be bought off the shelf. Also i think that the new Labour Defense Secretary will over time build up our national defence forces, including civil and industrial military base. Russian Dictator Putin at 71-72 years of age, has become more dangerous as hes got older. IMO only, its not about money with him.It’s now about leaving his mark on Russian history and he wants some of the old soviet borders back.Very dangerous times. Russia.N Korea.Iran. Trump & new far right governments in Europe. UK needs more new front line warships & submarines.Army and RAF need more of everything.
Couldn’t agree more ,with out a doubt we do need more of everything .But will Labour deliver ? Let’s wait and see 🙏
Gemma, surely the last time Inf Bns were 1,000 was in WW1 rather than in the Cold War – why do you suggest such a figure now? Surely a well armed battalion of 650 is about right – and plenty of them?
Lets see who is smiling after the forthcoming “Defence Review”. On past experience that is a cover phrase for “Cuts”. With a name like Healey ……… .
Starmer, Healey and Lammy are all attending the NATO meeting next week. And hoping for bi-lateral meeting with Biden and team. That will give us a good indication of priorities and I’m sure the US will be asking when we can deliver the capabilities they would like us to have.
I’m sure the US can kiss our ass, seriously why would you even think American had the right or inclination to ask us for anything? Did sleepy Joe suddenly become our boss or something?
Of course, I’m sure they would just be making helpful suggestions 😊
After a refusing to negotiate an economic treaty with the UK, a unilateral pull out from Afghanistan and holding aid back from Ukraine for a year and almost allowing the Russians to win I’m sure they can keep their suggestions to themselves which is im sure the message Sir Keir will be conveying.
I’m sure Joe will be asking his biggest Allie’s in Ireland and Israel to pick up the slack.
In all seriousness though the UK has no defence commitment to the USA. Such a commitment would be illegal without the consent of parliament.
The UK has a special relationship with the US based on the UKUSA agreement which contains no defence commitments nor does AUKUS and these have very little to do with politicians
The UK shares mutual defence obligations with NATO of which the USA is a member but that’s it.
It’s also worth pointing out of all the NATO countries the UK is one of the furthest away from China and Russia and that includes the USA.
Fair point re Ukraine: also the extradition treaty is tantamount to accepting US hegemony. I feel a reset coming on in the special relationship. Starmer is adopting an inclusive style of government. I’m sure he will extend the hand of friendship and offer the US preferential terms for licence builds of T26 and Tempest.😉
I have all the time in the world for Americans it is just their politicians and government I have had enough of much the same as the American people I suspect.
But the US has almost nothing to offer us, the UK is in no need of anyone’s assistance and certainly has no need to take guidance or suggestions from anyone in Washington.
I suspect Keir will have very little to do with any US President either a Republican or Democrat as it’s a toxic brand for any labour politician.
However the man is also a complete professional, he will walk a fine line between cold shoulder and hard embrace.
The UK should continue its primary European objective of defeating Russia while continuing its own Asian tilt especially with Japanese and Australian relations.
To be fare we do have a defence commitment to the U.S it’s called NATO and even with the geographic limitations it would mean we get dragged into a major china US war…if they went to war china would undertake attacks on the continental US of some type.
We have a defence commitment to the USA in the same way we have to Iceland or Albania or any other NATO member. This does not mean that Keir starmer will be running to Washington to ask what he can do for Sleepy Joe any more than he will be running to Reykjavik or Tirana to ask them how we can meet our defence commitments to them.
NATO does not work that way and the UK and US relationship does not work that way.
It is embedded at departmental level and enshrined in treaty’s like the UKUSA agreement.
It’s happens automatically without political interference or consent.
Hi Jim I was just responding to the statement “we have no defence commitments to the US” as that is not correct…NATO is a defence commitment that we have to all member states.
Given our dependence on Taiwanese semiconductor chips we have a very strong interest in deterring China’s ambitions there, regardless of our NATO commitments.
By their deeds ye shall know them..
Totally agree. Actions speak louder than words. Not interested in the last 14 years but the next 14. What are Labour going to do with funding.
A little puzzled by the phrase “in delivering the government’s defence plans” – surely it is the Military’s defence plan supported by the Government with MONEY. We could be in trouble if the Government start intriducing their own plan or micro-managing.
Well we should be interested in the last 14 years, because it has seen service personnel, aircraft, combat vehicles and warships all slashed to alarmingly miniscule levels, no improvement in squalid service housing, the contracting out of services to a bunch of pretty hapless suppliers and a raft of other backward steps.
All very well for Conservatives to now demand to know what Labour is going to do to repair the mess they left!
Reality is there is no money in the coffers to do much of anything, whether funding junior doctors and carers, replacing the umpty prisons and courts and barracks sold off in the last 14 years and the endless list of things requiring government funding.
We have basically been living far beyond our means, disguised from the public by record borrowing and record taxes.
I wish Healey best of luck as SoS. Even if he doesn’t have a magic money tree, one thing I hope he can do is draw a line in the sand that stipulates no further cuts in service numbers and equipment and no more withdrawls of serviceable equipment to flog off cheaply.
The only way I can see us getting to 2.5% of GDP is if it is done incrementally – 2.1% next year, 2.15 in 2026, 2.2 in 2027 and so on. There are 20 other departments screaming for more money but only limited ways of increasing the size of the cake in the short term.
I agree with all you have said on this subject. Labour needs to get the amphibious ships and others laid up or mothballed back into front line service.Navy needs to recruit more personnel.
Where will cash come from?
Absolutely
No it’s always the government’s plan and not the ministers plan,
Yes, indeed.
But at least with this new lot we don’t know what they will do, but that they have been making the right sounds.
We knew the Conservatives were just lying, so tha k goodness they’ve gone.
2.5% when?
They’ve acknowledged it won’t be that soon, the Conservative plan to fund it was unrealistic, essentially they will have to grow the economy to allow for it
So, if true, the commitment is 2.5% of GDP by a date uncertain, dependent upon “economic circumstances”? Does that differ materially from the Conservatives’ pledge? 🤔
I think that because the conservatives were proceeding with projects which would have necessitated 2.5% to complete because of the black holes – I was assuming that effectively we were already moving towards 2.5%. Labour have probably already worked out that they either commit to 2.5% or close some projects down (which might send the wrong signals). Sounds positive but needs clarity.
Hopefully, a 2.5% rate will cover the funding shortfalls of all projected programmes, and additionally provide a budget wedge to permit actual rearmament to some degree. 🤞
2.5% spent on what? The Tories have rebaselined the figures so much over the last 14 years that the spend on UK conventional defence capability is running at less than 1.6% of GDP, but they call it over 2.3%.
If extra money goes on core capability, we might see some of the black holes filled in. If money goes on future shiny (Tempest, SSN-A, hypersonics) or worse yet on operations/Ukraine etc, we will see further cuts.
2.5% will only give rearmament if the measure returns to pre 2010 definitions.
Ahhh, yes, the cliche “lies, damned lies and statistics” immediately springs to mind. In reality, even filling the current and projected black holes would be a net benefit. Any proposal for a larger percentage is very probably a “bridge too far.” Liz Truss proposed a 3% rate and her government lasted (49?) days. Can only imagine the reaction in Parliament to a rate equivalent to Poland’s. 🤔🥴 Perhaps a sad state of affairs w/ a massive land war w/in Europe, but political reality. Does encourage and frame a comparison of current period w/ mid-to-late 1930’s. A truly impressive feat to have begun rearmament during the midst of a global economic depression. Today, w/ an entitlement culture, small increases are viewed as virtually miraculous. Precisely the same situation exists in the US. 🤔😳
I am more gloomy – what’s new!?
We currently spend 2.3% of GDP on Defence.
£54.2bn in 2023/24 and £55.6bn for 2024/2025, but that includes many £££s for Ukraine (up to £4bn).
An uplift to 2.5% of GDP even instantly (ie with the economy being its current size and ungrown) would raise the spend to £60.4bn.
So an increase of £4.8bn on the 2024/2025 figure.
What can you do with an extra £4.8bn? Not as much as you would like. The Equipment Plan (EP) Black Hole is £17bn and that does not include all of the army’s aspirations as they only feed in funded programmes to the EP, unlike the RN who feed in unfunded programmes – yes, that’s messy admin, I know.
The EP if delivered in full does not materially increase the number of platforms, it largely just replaces or upgrades old platforms and non-platforms – in many cases equipment counts are set to reduce after recapitalisation through the EP ie from 213 CR2 tanks to 148 CR3s.
Away from equipment, there needs to be serious money spent on recruiting and retention (a decent pay rise, better allowances and improving service-provided rented accommodation would be at the core.)
[From gov.uk:MoD – UK Defence in Numbers 2023: “We spent £52.8 billion on defence in 2022/23, rising to £54.2 billion in 2023/24. For 2024/25, our core budget of £51.7 billion combined with assumed additional funding from the Treasury Reserve including for support to Ukraine, means our total defence budget is expected to be £55.6 billion. This is an increase of around £1.4 billion (1.8% in real terms) compared to 2023/24 and more in cash terms than ever before].
Agree with your points Graham. But I don’t believe we are spending anything like 2.3% of GDP.on defence.
The last year we have definitive GDP figures for is 2023. The UK’s GDP in 2023 totalled £2,687 bn, according to the House of Commons Library.
Figures for 2023 defence spend are variously given as £54.2bn and £55.6 bn.
That equates to.2.01% and 2.07% of GDP respectively. That is a long way short of 2.3%.
The MOD figures are tricky, some might say rather flexible aka dodgy. Three months ago, the same equation gave a defence spend of 1.97% of GDP. But the spend figure appears to have been revised to lift us over the 2% mark, quel surprise!
One early thing the new SoS could usefully do is level with the House and the public about the real percentage going on defence, once we take out the spend in cash/kind on Ukraine and the various future promisory notes that the previous Government kept throwing out.
It would be salutary for all to know where we really stand. If my calcs are correct, I think there would be quite serious concern from all corners of the House. However. I doubt the new Government will go so far, as it would raise a lot of concern from fellow NATO members and the finance is not there to rectify the shortfall.
Thanks. I got the 2.3% figure from a MoD document, but did not think to check it mathematically!
I find it hard to see where the new Govt will find the money to lift the spend to a genuine 2.5% of GDP, either in the next couple of years or even by 2030, given their other programmes.
At this point, believe that any net positive budgetary result should be viewed as a tactical victory. Without a substantial MIC, there is relatively little advocacy for defence in Parliament. Labour may actually prove beneficial to the defence of the realm by casting rearmament as an employment program. 🤔
You are right that our MIC is no longer substantial – it was quite significant even less than 10 years ago.
Here’s hoping Labour might do as you suggest, and order a lot more kit from the British defence industry.
,🤞🤞
Conservative pledge from what I recall was 2.5 by 2030, but without increasing taxes so would involve hacking off bits from other budgets and something to do with civil servants cuts as well. Not really a realistic plan
Interesting depiction of alternative means and methods to achieve same net result. 🤔 👍
It will all be down to NATO. The only benefit of the UK moving to 2.5% is to get the rest of NATO to do it. If the UK does it unilaterally it just encourages more free riding from Italy France and Germany.
The NATO decision has been moved to 2025. Expect a firm commitment from UK by 2027.
Hmmm, thought the original plan was to introduce the 2.5% goal during the 75th anniversary mtg in 2024? Controversy or bureaucratic inertia?
They all want to wait and see what happens in November. If Trump is elected they can all “begrudgingly” agree at the next NATO summit to 2.5%, Trump gets his “victory” makes America Great Again and western civilisation survives the Chinese juggernaut long enough for Xi to collapse their economy and sign their fate through a demographic demise.
No pressure 😀
Would be significantly more appreciative of this initiative if it was self-initiated by ENATO as a self-interest measure. Buy in is critically important. Intimidation and implicit threats will not prove successful long-term in a voluntary alliance.
The problem in a Trump presidency is he will need a win to be satisfied and in order to achieve that he will need to be seen to extract it. I’m sure this is what David Cameron was flying to Florida to discuss with him.
If ENATO agreed to 2.5% on its own initiative the Donald would demand 3%.
It differs in that the conservatives where just lying about it and labour is genuinely committed to doing it.
To be fair Jim they are talking the talk but there will be nobody happier than me if they actually deliver ….
I think starmer will, defence is not a big vote winner for him, why put it in his first speech then do nothing.
Fair point. Tory voters didn’t seem to see Kier as a defence risk like Corbyn and seemed quite happy to sit on their hands and let a Labour Government in. Therefore perhaps Kier knows that he must not show weakness on defence.
No. The phrase ‘when economic circumstances allow’ says it all- obviously they ‘allow’ at this very moment, but only if the government accepts that this is a top priority and is willing to reign in spending elsewhere to pay for it- which they won’t.
Growing the economy would make it harder to meet the target by increasing the amount of money that constitutes ‘2.5%’ of GDP. Unless of course they plan to grow the economy but constrain public spending in major budgets other than defence. I would be happy to see them do that but the various departments that then think they’re being short-changed would kick up a fuss.
Real ? , never.
Looks like that is the plan. Mood music is positive. Need some action quickly though to demonstrate a determination to re-inforce the military.
When the public finances allow 😀
we’ll see, I’m not holding my breath I thought that the labour stance in the armed forces was pretty vague.
Well, Labour surely can’t do worst than the Tories whose disastrous 2010 SDSR implemented deep cuts and capability holidays that still haunt the armed forces. For 14 years the Tories talked the talk on national security and defence, but not walked the walk by funding their promises. But it all comes down to when the 2.5% will be reached, if its still back-loaded to 2029/30 then the next few years are going to be highly embarrassing as Germany, France, Poland, Norway, Sweden etc. rebuild their militaries whilst the UK’s continues to shrink for several more years before the trend, perhaps, finally starts to reverse.
Labour haven’t even promised by 2030. It’ll basically never happen, especially if the Ukraine war eases off.
Let’s hope Labour can wake up to building our Defences 🙏
I’ve met Healey. He struck me as a sincere bloke willing to listen and learn, I think he will be a friend of Defence
We all said the same for Penny Mordant and Ben Wallace. Both left their posts for practically the same reason. Penny, as she was not in the current “in crowd” with Boris’s gang, plus she was getting more vocal in asking for more funds from the Treasury. Similarly with Ben Wallace, he looked at we had, said it was not fit for purpose in a politically acceptable way. Then got shafted by the Treasury asking for the munitions that were sent to Ukraine should be paid for by using the Foreign Aid Budget. He resigned after being told to wind his neck in.
I’m sure Healey has the best of intentions. But without support from the Treasury, it will be an empty gesture.
In power for 3 days, we normally give 100 before we lay into them, except Truss,she was truly useless.
Rachel Reeves will be key to this and will need a little bit of time to get to grips but Sunak and Hunt were very gracious in defeat and you’d hope will brief her on what sho!te lies ahead.
2.5% spent in the UK, on UK production, personnel and defence estate would boost the economy and return in the form of taxes. Reform of rail could save billions and then the bottomless pit that is the NHS.
Calling Jonathan!
My guess is labour will find money through common sense housekeeping. The UK is addicted to a punishment culture. The prisons minister will release the 30% of inmates in prison who shouldn’t be there and give them community sentences. This could release £4b of prison building program sitting there unspent. Rachel Reeves will close abuses of capital gains tax allowances – another few billion. The NHS will move stable, elderly patients out of expensive beds in hospital wards by buying cheaper beds in care homes and will routinely negotiate contracts with the private sector – reduce the dependence of extortionate agency staff, improve morale and patient experience. Govt will also start reversing those outsourcing and privatisations contracts which are more expensive than doing it in house e,g, Nationalisation of rail. The list goes on. As they say, look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves. People will be expected to be more flexible; e,g, drs and nurses working weekend rotas etc. No tax increases, no borrowing, no slavish adherence to ideology, no magic – just using the common sense you were born with.
Another Healey to wreck the Armed Forces.
Very worried.
Give the guy a chance – he has only been in the job since Friday!
Healey has wanted to be Defence Secretary for nearly 20 years and has been consistent in his support for the Armed Forces. I think he will be a good advocate or a thorn in Starmer’s side. I see Dan Jarvis is being drawn into the centre of gravity of national politics which is also good to see.
Fingers crossed.
I’d not heard of Jarvis. Just looked him up. A history that demands respect I think?
Well Healey says he wants to work with industry, it might be a good idea if he starts with the Steel industry has the way it’s going soon we may not be able to make our own .No doubt some Labour politicians will say let’s look over seas it’s cheaper, then another capability lost 🙄
TBH that’s more the Conservatives than Labour. hence the minimum spend of £0.5 million for electric arc in Port Talbot
The phrase ‘scalable industrial base’ is a bit perplexing. Even for relatively low-end stuff like bullets and munitions you need the tooling and the staff available to meet the requirement, which requires that the industrial base be operating on a large scale all the time. For production of advanced weapons (and the R&D behind them), the situation is still more problematic because the skill sets are very specialised and not necessarily transferable to roles in wider industry. My point is that if they want a credible military-industrial base then they will have to pay to sustain one on a permanent basis, not hope to somehow ‘scale up’ one that’s totally neglected every time the threats recede a bit. (The consequences of the latter mentality were very apparent in the Astute Programme).
I would suggest the MOD main building erects effigies of David Cameron and George Osborne outside so that staff and public could be allowed to burn/throw things things at. Their function would be to improve morale and act as a useful morality tale to help spur future politicians to not be such head up their own ar*e clowns.
He’s saying all the right things, but then so did the last government. We’ll have to see what they actually do.